"Pater urbis": Augustus as City Father of Rome

Abstract

Rome in the mid-first century B. C. projected an unattractive image. The urban infrastructure had long been mismanaged. Even public temples showed the effects of neglect. Focusing on immediate solutions solvable in a single term in office, Republican magistrates could not deal effectively with problems of urban care. Rather than enforcing extant regulations, the state relied inefficiently on private efforts and civil suits to maintain and protect the built environment. As a result, legal restrictions only marginally curbed poor construction and speculation. At the end of the millennium, Augustus assumed the role of pater patriae. As benevolent father, he exerted control over the Roman people at every level. Using a skillful combination of carrot and stick, he intervened in all aspects of the urban environment, building and repairing structures and reshaping legal and administrative provisions for urban care. For maximum efficiency, he redefined existing offices and established a clear hierarchy of responsibility. Exploiting the office of curator, he made appointments for lengthy terms and created permanent bureaucratic staffs. He involved every class in the care of the capital and made sure that all officeholders owed their allegiance to him personally. His efforts coalesced in 7 B. C. with the establishment of fourteen new administrative regions. Seen in totality, Augustus's seemingly ad hoc provisions for fire fighting, water distribution, building maintenance, and urban safety reflect a consistent policy of social control. His efforts to create a functional, attractive, and enduring urban environment were both paternal and calculated.

11 The Archaeology of Intermediate‐Scale Socio‐Spatial Units in Urban Landscapes

“…Map of Imperial Rome (modified from Plan of Imperial Rome by William R. Shepherd , 22‐23, and Favro , fig. 7; used with permission).…”

“…In the case of Hangzhou, local corruption initially blocked these changes; but, following a large‐scale riot by ordinary urban residents, the state shifted urban administration toward open wards policed by paid officials (Fuma ). In the case of Rome and Athens, the state faced resistance to its plans to developed gridded and integrated urban landscapes from entrenched private interests that were able to thwart the state to some degree, thereby limiting road networks to wheel and spoke patterns (Favro ; Hansen 1991).…”

“…Finally, administration of these intermediate‐scale units (i.e., wards, districts, neighborhoods, etc.) varied; some were directly administered by officials from the central bureaucracy (Aztec Tenochtitlan, the Republic of Venice, Ming China, early Imperial Rome), others were governed by senates and elected leaders (Athens), and still others were overseen by hereditary heads, usually wealthy patrons, under imperial supervision (e.g., Mughal India) (Blake ; Favro ; Fuma ; Hansen 1991; Hucker ; Romano ; Xu ).…”

“…It may be extremely challenging to stage collective action in social and physical landscapes that have long histories of sociopolitical structures that are antithetical to collective action. For example, with the turn towards collectivity between the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Early Imperial period, both Julius Caesar and Octavius (Augustus) faced strong resistance from nobles in their attempts to reform Rome's road networks and building codes (Favro ; van Tilburg , ch. 4).…”

Archaeology and the Anxiety of Loss: Effacing Preservation from the History of Renaissance Rome

“…8 By the same token, the civic government of Rome, founded on the Capitoline Hill in the 12th century, played a key role in politicizing the preservation of antiquity. For the history and institution of specific urban maintenance and preservation practices in Augustan Rome, see Strong 1968;Favro 1992Favro , 1996 Preservation practices acquired new legal forms during the fourth and fifth centuries, when numerous imperial edicts were issued in the effort to check advancing urban deterioration in Rome. They seized on the defense of the physical traces of 5 The history of archaeology itself as a field, long marginalized by archaeologists, has also gained new attention for its valuable perspective on the kinds of questions we ask of archaeological evidence (Trigger 2006, xv-xx).…”